House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Good point. Nova Scotia, which is the tourism capital of eastern Canada. I hate to say that because it should be New Brunswick and possibly P.E.I. I think there is a big risk in that very thing happening.

We have to remember there are 500,000 Canadians employed directly in tourism in Canada. What is the multiplier? It would be at least a multiplier of four or five, a big engine of economic growth in Atlantic Canada and other parts of Canada as well. The member's point is well taken.

There is a very clear risk when we have the directors and the president of the commission appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. That is a very strong possibility. That is a point well taken. That has to be considered when we are looking at amendments to this bill. There must be a better way to set up this organization rather than having one man dictate who the members will be. That individual would be the Prime Minister of Canada and he would be dictating who would be on the commission.

Let us re-examine and improve this bill and reduce the risk of the very thing the member said might happen from happening.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following travel motion:

That, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, be authorized to travel to western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta), from December 5, to December 11, 1999, in relation to its study on the effectiveness of long term safety nets and other national initiatives to provide the stability and environment necessary for stable growth in the agricultural industry and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are things in the explanations my hon. colleague provided the House that need to be clarified, like the dates and the names of the members taking part in this trip and their destination.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think the hon. member has indicated that he was talking about the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He was referring to the members of this committee, therefore.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Could we get more information about where are they going and how long their trip will last?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the hon. member referring to the whole committee?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

No.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are nine members listed, with all parties being represented. The dates are December 5 to December 11, 1999.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say. He touched a bit on the constitutional issue, as he was supposed to do, openly criticizing, as his party did, the Prime Minister's attitude with regard to referendum rules, and I congratulate him for that. Saying that the rules should be different from those applied in past referendums on the political future of Quebec and Canada is a serious attack on democracy.

On the issue of tourism, I would also like to know if the member thinks that the federal government is once again trying to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, not only in Quebec but in other provinces as well, and that, by doing so, it is breaking another one of its commitments, namely the commitment to withdraw from the tourism sector. We were told on several occasions that tourism was a provincial jurisdiction.

In fact, under the Conservative government, the Charlottetown accord contained a provision saying that the federal government would withdraw from the tourism sector and would not interfere again in this area under provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say on that subject, in other words whether his party still believes that tourism should be exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a role for the federal government in tourism. I do not question the need for that role as custodians for the entire country. I am not arguing that point.

What I am arguing is the construction of the very commission we are debating here today. I do not believe that that will lead to good management practices. I think it can lead to political manipulation, if you wish, in every province including the province of Quebec. On that basis, I do not support the construction as laid out in this design paper we have before us entitled Bill C-5.

I think it could be taken back to the drawing board, keeping in mind that there is a significant role in tourism for the federal government, but not under this plan. I think it is slightly flawed, to say the least.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be advisable to check whether we have a quorum to continue the proceedings of the House.

And the count having been taken:

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I see a quorum. We may resume.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for New Brunswick Southwest just mentioned that Nova Scotia is one of those fine tourism places. I have to say I cannot disagree with him. I think of the beautiful Annapolis Valley. I think of the Bay of Fundy. I think of the fine lobster we have in my part of the country. I think of the great apples we have, all the parks and all the fine beaches.

My hon. colleague also mentioned that the head office for this new organization would be somewhere in Canada. I am wondering if my hon. colleague would support this headquarters being located possibly in my fine riding of West Nova.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not in the driver's seat. Under the act, as presented, the Prime Minister of Canada will be able to use his influence to determine where that might be.

The town that comes to my mind, looking at the Prime Minister and his past practices, would be Chicoutimi. I would not be surprised that it would wind up in Chicoutimi. Under the act, it could be any place in Canada, but I am sure there is going to be a little bit of arm twisting to put it a little closer to the Prime Minister's home.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to acknowledge the great growth of the Canadian tourism market over the past number of years. In many parts of the country, tourism accounts for perhaps fourth or third, sometimes even second or first, among the industries that produce dollars. From the unique locations that have a story to tell, the many historical points across this land of ours, to the remote locations of ecotourism, Canada has a lot to offer the world.

All across the country there are tourism boards which are mainly made up of volunteers looking to promote their own local highlights. From small town Saskatchewan to urban Montreal and all the points east, west, north and south the country has much to offer. We ought to be exploiting the scenic beauty and the many historical sites around the nation.

I will take some time to read into the record this afternoon a bit about the community in which I live. The story of Chemainus, British Columbia, is one of the success of tourism in the nation.

Those who do not know where Chemainus is located ought to know. It is located about one hour north of Victoria, British Columbia, on beautiful Vancouver Island. Many people are looking forward to making that part of the country their final destination. It is a great place to live and I suspect, although I do not know yet, that it is probably a good place to die.

The local tourism information centre describes the history of Chemainus as a small town having relied for over 100 years on the lumber industry for its existence. In 1980 concern about MacMillan Bloedel's inevitable downsizing prompted the community to begin discussions on revitalizing the downtown core, with the hope of developing some form of tourism.

Taking advantage of a provincial downtown revitalization program, the town fathers developed a business improvement plan now known as the mural project. They recommended painting large, high quality murals depicting the logging and lumber history of Chemainus on the exterior walls of various buildings.

The first mural was painted in 1982 by Vancouver Island artist Frank Lewis. These amazing professionally painted murals, all painted from authentic historical photos of the settlers, vividly depict the history of the Chemainus valley including the forest industry and first nations chiefs.

In addition to the magnificent murals Chemainus now boasts a new 270 seat family dinner theatre, many fascinating shops, and is home to many talented artisans. By the third year it was estimated that the murals were attracting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 tourists. Today over 400,000 people visit Chemainus annually to see the 33 world famous murals. A sign on the edge of town reads “Welcome to the community that is known as the little town that did”.

Chemainus is a success story of determination, courage and vision. For over 100 years the town had solely depended on the forest industry for its existence. Confronted with the downsizing of the forest industry in the early 1980s, the community began embarking on the transition to diversify its economy. Along with the city fathers there was one man who was the driving force behind the original Chemainus mural project, Karl Shultz. Many people could learn a lot from Karl. His credo is never let those who say it cannot be done stand in the way of those who are doing it.

Many people looked at Chemainus in those days and declared that turning the town into an outdoor art gallery simply could not and should not be done. Fortunately the people who were busy trying to do it were too busy to get discouraged. That is why Chemainus is known today as the little town that did.

During this transition Chemainus went from a 120 year old sawmill town with no tourists in 1981 to a thriving tourist destination with over 450,000 tourists by the year 1988, and from 40 local businesses to over 300 today. Chemainus has gone from being left off the maps of the world to becoming internationally famous.

Members can imagine that municipal revenues have more than tripled what they were a little over a decade ago. From the work of one man to a dedicated group of community minded volunteers Chemainus is indeed the little town that did.

Chemainus received the prestigious British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Award for the Americas in London, England. It was featured on radio with 1.5 million listeners hearing the story on the British travel TV show Wish You Were Here . They were viewed by 15 million people and appeared in the London Times with a readership of 3.5 million.

In Japan the popular quiz show Naruhodo the World , with 10 million viewers, featured the Chemainus Art Gallery. As well there was an eight page article in the May 1994 issue of the Smithsonian Magazine .

This is just one small town with one story to tell in the tourist industry across Canada. It is what the dream and determination of dedicated people coming together in a common cause can do.

Chemainus is a prime example of the success of entrepreneurial spirit that captures the heart and soul of many Canadians across the country today. In fact, many Canadians have come to the conclusion that if we do not do it, it will not get done. That is simply the way it is.

In the midst of speaking about the bill I ask why there is the need to have one more crown corporation to do the work being done so well by groups of people like the citizens of Chemainus. I have no doubt that the Canadian Tourism Commission plays an important role at the international level, but I really wonder whether it is the government's business to be involved in such things.

Why am I concerned? Simply put, it comes down to who can perform the task best and at what financial cost. If we go over the history of Canada, the involvement of the Canadian government in the economic life of the country and the stories that are told about government crown corporations, surely we will learn some lessons from the past. Whether crown corporations are federal or provincial, over a period of years their budgets and bureaucracies are virtually out of control. It is certainly out of the control of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer who ends up funding these projects.

The board of directors is now largely made up of private industry members. It is in their best interest to continue to promote Canada as a tourist destination. Why not simply let them continue doing the job without the apron strings of government? Let them do what they can do best. We have the obvious example of the Chemainus success story. Surely it can be repeated over and over and over again across the nation.

While my colleagues and I in the official opposition firmly support the creation of efficiency in government and the delivery of government programs, I cannot support the move to establish the Canadian Tourist Commission as a crown corporation.

My opposition is based mainly upon lack of public accountability. At a time when the public is demanding greater accountability of its tax dollars at work, we should not be allowing the creation of another crown corporation which does not have the need to come before parliament to account for how it spends its money.

Some of my colleagues in the House have already pointed out the problem of too much political influence by the government in crown corporations. That political influence starts right at the Prime Minister's Office. It goes down through the various departments and their ministers to the grassroots. Before we know it power is vested in a small group of people taking control of all crown corporations.

We already have a situation where the Prime Minister's Office has far too much power. Are Canadian taxpayers aware that the Prime Minister's Office has the power to make over 5,000 appointments from supreme court justices to senators in the other house and down through parliamentary secretaries to members of committees? It goes on and on. We have vested far too much power in the hands of a few. Crown corporations are just another way of keeping a tight rein on that power.

As I have shown with my hometown of Chemainus, local businesses and municipal leaders have been able to take what was a desperate situation in the early 1980s and turn the community into an international success story. I invite members to join me next summer in Chemainus to see what the private sector can do and see what real success and community pride are.

The Canadian Tourism Commission could learn a lot from Chemainus. The government could learn a lot from the little town that did.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the story of Chemainus. It sounds like a wonderful place. I would be happy to visit it some day. We have these points of light across the country. It is a great country to visit. Yet, when I travel abroad we are seen as a country that plays at tourism. We do not treat it with all the respect that it perhaps needs.

This commission and its predecessor are all relatively new. I remember when the commission first started a number of years ago. The Canadian government as a federal jurisdiction basically withdrew from these areas and Canadian tourism shrunk accordingly.

Realistically the hon. member knows that people will not simply come from Europe to visit Chemainus. They will visit many other tourist areas in the country. If there is one thing the government can do effectively, it can co-ordinate tourist areas to find destinations to which people want to travel and designate marketing areas, for instance the European Union, southeast Asia and so forth, in which to tell our story.

I am interested in one problem we have with the European Union because I am interested in the area of trade. The European Union still thinks that in Canada we mine and cut down trees. It is very important, not only for tourism but for trade, that we change that image or vision.

I disagree with the member. He seems to feel that if we privatize everything industry will know best. I can tell the member that if industry knew best it would have done this years ago, but it did not. It has failed to coalesce those areas in our country and market them as a country, rather than just Chemainus.

His party is fixated on the idea of privatizing everything, that somehow if we give it over to private industry it will know best, and maybe it will in some ways. However, what we will find is that the big players will benefit, the airlines and the international hotels, and not the Chemainuses of this world.

Does the member not see the importance of having a national tourism authority?

He talked about accountability. I am very sensitive to that as well. However, the commission will come under the Financial Administration Act. The auditor general will audit the books of the crown corporation, and there are ways to make crown corporations efficient and effective.

Does the member not think there is a good use for this and that Chemainus will be better off if we have a crown corporation set up for tourism?

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. I am sure he will not be offended if I correct his pronunciation of my hometown. It is Chemainus. Seamus is that Irish character from a different land.

Between my hon. colleague and myself there is obviously a fundamental difference in philosophy and approach. We in this party believe very strongly in free enterprise, that people who are motivated by low tax regimes and opportunities for business create a good business climate. They make the best decisions and do the right things in terms of driving the economy of the country.

Government does not drive the economy of the country. Big business does not really drive the economy. What drives the economy are thousands of small businessmen across the nation, entrepreneurial in nature and outlook, who take hold of an idea and run with it. They are the ones who are closest to the ground and to the delivery of services. They are the ones who know best how to do this.

I point out to my colleague that in the little town of Chemainus, of the 450,000 visitors who come each year, the highest number come from Japan and the second highest number come from Germany, an Asian nation and a European nation. Obviously the people of Chemainus and their little tourism group have done their work. They have been overseas to visit these markets. They have done their work and they have attracted people.

I do not know why that experience cannot be duplicated right across the country. My contention still remains that if we get government involved in things like crown corporations, sooner or later they rob people of initiative at the grassroots level by trying to do the job in a huge way that can be best done locally.

My colleague and I have a fundamental difference, and I guess we will both have to live with it.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his most passionate speech about his hometown of Chemainus. I can tell by the twinkle in your eye, Mr. Speaker, that you will be booking your next vacation to Chemainus. I know that warms the heart of my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

My colleague spoke quite eloquently about his hometown and all the hard work that has been done to create this thriving tourism hot spot.

As I said to my hon. colleague yesterday who made a similar speech on this topic, when it comes to the level of jurisdiction, I believe there is a role for all three levels of government, the municipal, provincial and federal government, in promoting tourism. Obviously tourism falls into provincial jurisdiction.

Does my hon. colleague think we could respect a balance between the provinces and the federal government in the role of promoting tourism in light of these changes?

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the good wishes of my hon. colleague.

This is a very big issue across Canada. We have spoken about provincial jurisdiction, referenda and possible threats of breaking up the country in the House every day this week and last week. This is a very important issue in terms of the kind of roles the provinces and the federal government play in areas like tourism.

Again, we have a fundamental difference with our Liberal colleagues on this issue. Reformers do not want to play the role of big brother from a federal perspective. We want to play the role of brothers and sisters equally across the country. The provincial prerogative to deliver services should be left to the provinces because those services can better be delivered at the local level.

That is why the Reform Party in the last year or so has put forth the one Canada proposal. We call it “La Troisième Voie”. It is a third way of looking at this. There should be equality among provinces. Perhaps we could return to some of the original concepts that this great nation was built on, such as allowing the provinces to do those things which were guaranteed. Over the years the federal government, playing big brother, has taken them away. Health care is one of them, and now look at the state we are in.

We have to return to the fundamental reasons for which this country was built and create again a sense of equality so that we can walk side by side with our heads held high and keep this country together, united in the areas that make us great.

Tourism is basically a provincial responsibility and the federal government should stay out of it as much as possible.

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think we are debating an extremely important matter. I call for a quorum count.

And the count having been taken:

Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung